Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Jack leave his fingerprints on Mary Jane Kelly?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    We know he was throwing clothes on the fire. A fact. So if clothing is missing what do you think may have happened to them? Well it isn't a bad bet they are vaporized.

    Did they go out for a ciggie break maybe? Spook Hutchinson by running around the court?

    I'd say he was just throwing them from the bed to the fire which explains why they were half in, half out.
    We don't actually know what was missing .
    We have a few reports regarding the clothes that Maria Harvey claimed to have left there .
    There is no itinery of the contents of the room
    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by packers stem View Post
      We don't actually know what was missing .
      We have a few reports regarding the clothes that Maria Harvey claimed to have left there .
      There is no itinery of the contents of the room
      I am not saying we are certain. I am just saying that if clothing like missing stockings is used to cast doubt on what could be a garter piece we should be reminded that Jack was burning up clothes and therefore this has explanatory power over where the 'missing' stocking went.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Batman View Post
        I am not saying we are certain. I am just saying that if clothing like missing stockings is used to cast doubt on what could be a garter piece we should be reminded that Jack was burning up clothes and therefore this has explanatory power over where the 'missing' stocking went.
        But there is no evidence it is a garter !
        Its supposition based upon more supposition of a missing stocking.

        You could say she had a full lingerie set , nice dressing gown and slippers .
        Doesn't make it fact
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by packers stem View Post
          But there is no evidence it is a garter !
          Its supposition based upon more supposition of a missing stocking.

          You could say she had a full lingerie set , nice dressing gown and slippers .
          Doesn't make it fact
          Photographs are a type of evidence. There are two photographs from different angles and it is not an artifact. The position of the structure closely resembles that of a garter. No wound was described in this area which would be strange if it was a wound because it is somewhat unique and very obvious. Therefore in all likelihood we are looking at a garter piece. So there is some evidence for it being a garter piece.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Batman View Post
            Photographs are a type of evidence. There are two photographs from different angles and it is not an artifact. The position of the structure closely resembles that of a garter. No wound was described in this area which would be strange if it was a wound because it is somewhat unique and very obvious. Therefore in all likelihood we are looking at a garter piece. So there is some evidence for it being a garter piece.
            Yes , photography is evidence .
            Now look again and think what else it could be other than a piece of string.
            Far too much 'convenient presumption' in ripperology.
            You say no wound was described .
            Neither was any item of clothing as ,of course , she was 'quite naked'
            As you point out the photograph is evidence .
            Well does the face look to you like partially severed eyebrows , nose , ears and cheeks etc blanched and cut lips ?
            We have the advantage of being able to zoom now .
            Using that a little more can get every one a little closer to the truth ...... if they have the desire to get to the truth
            You can lead a horse to water.....

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by packers stem View Post
              Yes , photography is evidence .
              Now look again and think what else it could be other than a piece of string.
              Far too much 'convenient presumption' in ripperology.
              You say no wound was described .
              Neither was any item of clothing as ,of course , she was 'quite naked'
              As you point out the photograph is evidence .
              Well does the face look to you like partially severed eyebrows , nose , ears and cheeks etc blanched and cut lips ?
              We have the advantage of being able to zoom now .
              Using that a little more can get every one a little closer to the truth ...... if they have the desire to get to the truth
              String makeshifting a garter works for me.

              Yeah she was naked. If she had socks on she would be quiet naked too.
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                String makeshifting a garter works for me.

                Yeah she was naked. If she had socks on she would be quiet naked too.
                No she wouldn't .
                She'd have been wearing socks ...... clearly
                Naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing .
                That would be 'almost naked'
                You can lead a horse to water.....

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                  No she wouldn't .
                  She'd have been wearing socks ...... clearly
                  Naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing .
                  That would be 'almost naked'
                  It's naked enough to get arrested looking like that.

                  "No your Honour I was not naked. I had my socks on. Clearly naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing."

                  "Case dismissed. You'll be the next Johnny Cocran."
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Batman View Post

                    "No your Honour I was not naked. I had my socks on. Clearly naked isn't determined by which or how much clothing."
                    That statement would still be accurate .
                    That may be there is no crime of nudity
                    It's indecent exposure ..... quite different .

                    Time would be better served looking at other aspects of the photos as you're never going to move away from the garter now , despite the very obvious indentation at the top .
                    Try the left thigh bone and how the leg managed to become elevated for MJK3 ��
                    You can lead a horse to water.....

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Right now I am focusing on JtR's prints in relation to the developmental biology paper I referenced, but sure, go find something new and interesting to work on.
                      Bona fide canonical and then some.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Batman View Post
                        String makeshifting a garter works for me.

                        Yeah she was naked. If she had socks on she would be quiet naked too.
                        Agreed.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X